AttilaTheHun wrote:

How about an scroll bar/slider next to the order list that shows (visually) the progress of your prospective move list?  Similar to the History slider.  It would ideally update the map image in the player or in a popup window.

This approaches what I think would be a reasonable solution, though it seems as if it might be tricky to code for the Flash player.

Another solution that comes to mind is to have color coded arrows that stay on the board wherever orders are placed.  Hovering over them could display their order #, or perhaps the number could be displayed with the arrow.

You can click on the order in the Order Review list and it should highlight the territories concerned - is this what you mean?

Not really.  What I'm talking about is the ability to see more of a "current board state" (somewhat of a misnomer, I know).  Currently, clicking on an order still doesn't relay its "order context". 

I suppose one step towards achieving this could be that when you click on an order

• concerned territories are highlighted
• territories with previous orders are not highlighted but their "order" dots remain.
• the dots related to later orders disappear.

I don't know if this would help or not.  It's just an idea.  All I know is the way it exists right now doesn't work (for me) when orders pile up.

M57 wrote:

Not really.  What I'm talking about is the ability to see more of a "current board state" (somewhat of a misnomer, I know).  Currently, clicking on an order still doesn't relay its "order context". 

I suppose one step towards achieving this could be that when you click on an order

• concerned territories are highlighted
• territories with previous orders are not highlighted but their "order" dots remain.
• the dots related to later orders disappear.

I don't know if this would help or not.  It's just an idea.  All I know is the way it exists right now doesn't work (for me) when orders pile up.

One improvement here would be to display the actual units counts on each territory after the Reinforce phase.  This is where I believe most of the mental work has to happen so that one can remember Territory A has X units at the start of the round.  From there it would still have to be anticipatory but there's no way around that until the turn resolution.

And of course this feature would be helpful for team games when Team transfer is on.

~ATH

From a more recent thread:

SquintGnome wrote:

Ok, thats the way I was thinking it would work.  That being the case, it is one thing that is a bit frustrating about SG on the A&A board.  If I am playing Russia a couple rounds in and need to hold the line against German or Japanese attacks I may want to choose a tactic as mentioned above, max out a territory, wait for it to be attacked then reinforce or retake.  However, with so little to move about, I won't have a lot of orders so my opponent can delay the attack or multiple attacks late in the turn and take the territory without an opportunity to counterattack.

I can appreciate the sense of realism and uncertainty the order execution imparts in the game, but it is a big disadvantge when your opponent has many more orders to allow them to implement important movements last.  I would like to see perhaps incluing some logic that can group orders per territory before executing them.  So that in the scenario above the counterattack would not be ignored. 

I have never been able to figure out how players "string out" orders.  Do you fortify one army at a time? Can you fortify back and forth?

I recall that some SG aficionados love the order stacking part of the game, but others were not so keen on it.  When SG was being developed, was it planned that the order stacking component of it was going to be the same or different than on WG?

"Stringing out" orders usually consists of small troop movements before the main attack.  This can be done anywhere on the board but is normally performed via small unit fortifications to the front lines, between front line territories, or as a sacrificial attack on enemy territories.  Keep in mind that if you spend armies stacking the orders, then those are normally not armies you can use to attack with (Bomb Factory is  good example for this lesson).

The answer to the "order stacking" issue was meant to be the "Fatigue" setting and is already an option for Wargear designers.  Most Simulgear boards, however, haven't taken full advantage of the fatigue settings to discourage order stacking.

So, until that happens, the strong SG player will stack as much as possible in order to gain the advantage.

~ATH

P.S. I'm a proponent of using the fatigue settings and have seen it perform well on a few development boards.

As far as personal taste goes, lack of fatigue never bothers me on a small enough board. The owner of more territories has the "stringing out orders" edge, but uses it at the expense of attack potential, as ATH pointed out.

On some larger boards, the bonuses are sufficient to where you may as well use your "stringing out orders" edge if you have it. For such boards, I would prefer fatigue be in place.

Hugh wrote:

As far as personal taste goes, lack of fatigue never bothers me on a small enough board. The owner of more territories has the "stringing out orders" edge, but uses it at the expense of attack potential, as ATH pointed out.

On some larger boards, the bonuses are sufficient to where you may as well use your "stringing out orders" edge if you have it. For such boards, I would prefer fatigue be in place.

Sounds like its a matter if preference.  If you are the kind of player that likes putting in the time stacking orders to gain the advantage, then you might not be as much a fan of Fatigue.

As one who struggles to keep track of placed orders in SG, let alone how to effectively string out orders, it would seem that I would be a fan of fatigue.  On the other hand, because it's an an additional artificial and complicated construct, it further complicates my understanding of the mechanics of battle resolution.

I feel like I'm in a Charlie Brown episode....wah, wah, wah, wahwah, wah, wah.

I really can't play a SG game except as a turn based game where the action happens while I'm not looking. Kind of like playing a board game and going to the bathroom while everyone takes there turn. You come back and you try to figure out what happened and although you see the end result you are not really sure how it all happened. 

When people start explaining it or discuss strategy I feel like I do when M57 explains math proofs to me.... right over my head... and not much goes over my head. This sure does though....

And now back to our regular program. 

Thank you!

I can really end a discussion.....

AdamN wrote:

I can really end a discussion.....

I think most of the talking points surrounding SG have been exhausted.  Some like it, some don't.  No matter how well it's explained and/or understood, it always comes back to this.

AdamN wrote:

I can really end a discussion.....

Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

AdamN wrote:

I can really end a discussion.....

**crickets**  **crickets**

Beastlymaster wrote:

AdamN wrote:

I can really end a discussion.....

**crickets**  **crickets**

nice!